Do 72-Hour Waiting Periods and Two-Visit Requirements for Abortion Affect Women's Certainty? A Prospective Cohort Study

Public perceptions of abortion complications

BACKGROUND

Misinformation contributes to the perception that abortion has substantial health risks, despite the known safety of medication and aspiration abortion. We lack detailed information about which health risks the public believes are most likely.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe public perception of short- and long-term risks of abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US residents aged ≥18 years using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We collected information regarding participant demographics, reproductive history, political views, and position on abortion restrictions. We provided participants with a list of 9 short-term and 15 long-term possible complications and asked them to indicate whether they occurred never (0%), very rarely (<1%), rarely (1%-5%), occasionally (5%-20%), or frequently (>20%) following abortion. We used descriptive statistics to understand our population demographics and to capture the perceived incidence of all complications. We created a binary indicator of answering all risk estimates incorrectly vs at least 1 estimate correctly, separately for all long-term possible complications, and the 2 short-term risks of infection and bleeding. We determined the proportion of individuals who responded incorrectly to all questions in each category and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with incorrect perceptions about the risks of abortion.

RESULTS

For all listed complications, participant (N=1057) estimates of risk were higher than the known incidence. For both short-term risks of bleeding and infection, over 40% of participants reported that these outcomes occur occasionally or frequently. Similarly, for both long-term risks of depression and anxiety, over 60% of respondents reported that these outcomes occur occasionally or frequently after abortion. Participants reported that possible complications known to not be associated with abortion, including hair loss, future pregnancy complications, breast cancer, and cosmetic disfigurement, occurred at least rarely. Nearly one-quarter of participants responded that death occurs occasionally or frequently (in over 5% of abortions), and 79% of participants responded that breast cancer can result from abortion. One-quarter (24.9%) of participants incorrectly overestimated both short-term outcomes of infection and bleeding, whereas 19.5% answered all long-term complication questions incorrectly, including outcomes that never occur. On multivariable analyses, we identified that the participants most likely to incorrectly identify risks of abortion identified as Asian or Black race/ethnicity, were from rural communities, or believed that abortion should have more legal restrictions.

CONCLUSION

The public perceives abortion to be much riskier than it actually is. This information can be used to develop targeted clinical and public health efforts to disseminate the true risks of abortion.

Pregnancy scares, pregnancy uncertainty, and abortion attitude change

Women's attitudes towards abortion are often assessed infrequently in their lives. This measurement may not capture how lifetime events, such as reproductive experiences, potentially influence attitudes towards abortion. Although reproductive attitudes can fluctuate with life's circumstances, there is little research on how abortion attitudes may change when a woman suspects she might be pregnant. Using an intensive longitudinal dataset collected in Michigan, the Relationship Dynamics and Social Life (RDSL) study (2008-2012), we test the relationship between the timing of pregnancy scares and uncertainty and abortion attitudes using hybrid effects models. We find that women become less supportive of abortion while experiencing a pregnancy scare or uncertainty; however, this association exists only during a scare or uncertainty. These findings highlight that abortion attitudes may change when a woman suspects she might be pregnant. However, attitudinal change may not last past this period.

The right to choose to abort an abortion: should pro-choice advocates support abortion pill reversal?

Abortion pill reversal (APR) treatment aims to halt an initiated medical abortion, wherein a pregnant woman takes progesterone after having taken the first of the two consecutive abortion pills, typically because she has changed her mind and no longer wants to abort the pregnancy. It is a controversial intervention, generally supported by those identifying as pro-life and opposed by those identifying as pro-choice. This paper examines whether, in principle, those identifying with the pro-choice view should support APR. We firstly examine the commitments of the pro-choice stance. We then briefly outline the evidence supporting the APR. Following this, we discuss potential consequences of APR on women's mental health and its safety. We conclude that those espousing the pro-choice standpoint should be, in principle, committed to supporting the availability of APR, while recognising that data on its efficacy may be difficult to obtain.

Ethics of a Mandatory Waiting Period for Female Sterilization

Due to a history of coerced sterilization, a federal Medicaid sterilization policy mandates that a specific consent form be signed by a patient at least thirty days prior to when the patient undergoes sterilization. However, in contemporary obstetrical practice, the Medicaid sterilization policy serves as a policy-level barrier to autonomously desired care. We review the clinical and ethical implications of the current Medicaid sterilization policy. After discussing the utility and impact of waiting periods for other surgical procedures, we explore the psychology of time required for decision-making and consider scientific understanding of regret. We argue that the current Medicaid sterilization waiting period is clinically and ethically unjustifiable and that the policy ought to be revised in light of the goals, preferences, and concerns of the people most affected by it. While the need for continued protection against coercion remains, the current mandated waiting period does little to enforce the high-quality shared decision-making that is desired for sterilization counseling.

The impact of mandatory waiting periods on abortion-related outcomes: a synthesis of legal and health evidence

This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs “demean[] women as competent decision-makers”, the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.

Abortion Waiting Periods and Decision Certainty Among People Searching Online for Abortion Care

Living in a state with a waiting period or a two-visit requirement (or both) to receive abortion care is not associated with increased decision certainty.

Many U.S. states mandate counseling and a waiting period before abortion, which often necessitates two separate clinic visits. These laws purport to ensure individuals are certain about their abortion decision. We examined whether exposure to these laws is associated with increased decision certainty.

Pre-Abortion Informed Consent Through Telemedicine vs. in Person: Differences in Patient Demographics and Visit Satisfaction

PURPOSE

Utah law requires patients to have a face-to-face "informed consent" visit at least 72 hours prior to abortion. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) offers this visit via telemedicine as an alternative to an in-person visit, which can require burdensome travel. This novel study identifies factors associated with using telemedicine for informed consent, patients' reasons for using it, and experiences with it, compared to in-person informed consent.

METHODS

In 2017 and 2018, patients 18 years and older seeking abortion at PPAU completed a self-administered online survey about their experiences with the informed consent visit. We used linear and logistic regression models to compare participants' demographic characteristics by informed consent visit type, and descriptive statistics to describe reasons for using each visit type and experiences with the visit. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between visit type and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Responses from 166 telemedicine patients and 217 in-person informed consent patients indicate that telemedicine participants would have had to travel significantly further than in-person participants traveled to attend the visit at the clinic (mean of 65 miles versus 21 miles, p < .001). In multivariable analyses, telemedicine participants had higher odds of being "very satisfied" with the visit (aOR, 2,89; 95% CI: 1.93-4.32) and "very comfortable" asking questions during the visit (aOR, 3.76; 95% CI: 2.58-5.49), compared to participants who attended in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine offers a convenient, acceptable option for mandated pre-abortion informed consent visits and reduces the burden of additional travel and associated barriers for some patients, particularly those who live further away from clinics.

Towards a better understanding of abortion misinformation in the USA: a review of the literature

Roughly 20% of women in the USA will seek an abortion during their lifetimes. As abortion is a medical procedure, individuals seeking abortion services must have access to accurate medical information. Inaccurate information about abortion, known as abortion misinformation, adversely affects knowledge about abortion, and may impair informed decision-making. Abortion misinformation has received limited attention in psychological and health research. This review summarises current findings on abortion misinformation from studies of adults in the USA, examines which forms of misinformation are most common, and assesses prominent sources of abortion misinformation. A narrative, integrative approach was adopted focussing on nine articles. Findings suggest that first, inaccurate beliefs about abortion exist among many samples of US adults, including inaccurate connections between abortion and breast cancer, infertility and negative mental health outcomes. Second, abortion misinformation comes from a variety of informational sources, which may render efforts to prevent it challenging. Summarising and extending knowledge of abortion misinformation may be useful first steps to better understanding this phenomenon and may ultimately aid in reduction of abortion misinformation among individuals living in the USA.

State abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion are associated with pregnancy outcomes among individuals seeking abortion recruited using Google Ads: A national cohort study

OBJECTIVE

A major challenge to understanding barriers to abortion is that those individuals most affected may never reach an abortion provider, making the full impact of restrictive policies difficult to measure. The Google Ads Abortion Access Study used a novel method to recruit individuals much earlier in the abortion-seeking process. We aimed to understand how state-level abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion influence individuals' ability to obtain wanted abortions.

METHODS

We employed a stratified sampling design to recruit a national cohort from all 50 states searching Google for abortion care. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. The primary independent variables were: 1) state policy environment and 2) state coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid. We developed multivariable multinomial mixed effects models to estimate the associations between each state-level independent variable and pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 874 participants with follow-up data, 48% had had an abortion, 32% were still seeking an abortion, and 20% were planning to continue their pregnancies at 4 weeks follow-up. Individuals in restricted access states had significantly higher odds of planning to continue the pregnancy at follow-up than participants in protected access states (aOR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.08, 2.70). Individuals in states that do not provide coverage of abortion for people with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of still seeking an abortion at follow-up (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24, 2.60). Individuals living in states without Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to report that having to gather money to pay for travel expenses or for the abortion was a barrier to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all and lack of coverage for abortion is associated with prolonged abortion seeking. Medicaid coverage of abortion appears critical to ensuring that all people who want abortions can obtain them.

Nonpharmacological interventions to improve the psychological well-being of women accessing abortion services and their satisfaction with care: A systematic review

How women perceive and experience abortion impacts their subsequent psychological well-being. This systematic review evaluated nonpharmacological interventions designed to support women undergoing abortion services and improve their psychological well-being and satisfaction with care. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and PTSD Pubs. All searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English from January 2010 to February 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Ten studies were included, involving four types of interventions: music therapy; social support; information support; and mandated waiting and counseling requirements on abortion access. Outcome measures were divided into four categories comprised of cognitive domains, emotional and psychological well-being, clinical symptoms, and satisfaction with care. However, there is limited evidence on intervention effects. Most studies report null or mixed intervention effects. Even though some positive effects on women's cognitive outcomes and satisfaction with care were seen, findings across studies were inconclusive. Findings also show that methodological limitations such as lack of theoretical basis, inadequate reporting and no power sample size calculation were apparent across studies. There is limited evidence about nonpharmacological interventions designed to improve women's satisfaction with abortion services or psychological outcomes subsequent to accessing abortion services. Well-designed interventions that meet the needs of service-users should be developed and rigorously tested.

Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice

Some laws insist on a fixed, compulsory waiting period between the time of obtaining consent and when abortions or sterilizations are carried out. Waiting periods are designed to allow for reflection on the decision and to minimize regret. In fact, the cognitive processing needed for these important decisions takes place relatively rapidly. Clinicians are used to handling cases individually and tailoring care appropriately, including giving more time for decision-making. Psychological considerations in relation to the role of emotion in decision-making, eg, regret, raise the possibility that waiting periods could have a detrimental impact on the emotional wellbeing of those concerned which might interfere with decision-making. Having an extended period of time to consider how much regret one might feel as a consequence of the decision one is faced with may make a person revisit a stable decision. In abortion care, waiting periods often result in an extra appointment being needed, delays in securing a procedure and personal distress for the applicant. Some women end up being beyond the gestational limit for abortion. Those requesting sterilization in a situation of active conflict in their relationship will do well to postpone a decision on sterilization. Otherwise, applicants for sterilization should not be forced to wait. Forced waiting undermines people's agency and autonomous decision-making ability. Low-income groups are particularly disadvantaged. It may be discriminatory when applied to marginalized groups. Concern about the validity of consent is best addressed by protective clinical guidelines rather than through rigid legislation. Waiting periods breach reproductive rights. Policymakers and politicians in countries that have waiting periods in sexual and reproductive health regulation should review relevant laws and policies and bring them into line with scientific and ethical evidence and international human rights law.

Decision rightness and relief predominate over the years following an abortion

A recent analysis from the Turnaway study focused on women who were just under the gestational limit of a clinic and received an abortion and those who had first trimester abortions to examine trends in decisional rightness and negative and positive emotions over 5 years after the abortion. Specifically, Rocca et al. (in press) analyzed these data and found that women were overwhemingly sure of their decision: 95% felt their decision was the right one at each assessment after their abortion, and the predicted probability of abortion being the right decision was 99% at 5 years afterwards. Relief was the most common emotion felt by women, and negative emotions or decision regret did not emerge over time. These results and others from studies conducted globally counter assertions by abortion opponents that women are not certain of their decisions, or that women regret or have mainly negative emotions about their abortions if not in the short run then after a long period of time. This commentary addresses not only these findings but also relevant U.S. abortion policies based on these unsubstantiated claims. Policies should not be based on the notions that women are unsure of their decision, come to regret, it or have negative emotions because there is no evidence to support these claims.

Characteristics of Women Who Present for Abortion Beyond the Legal Limit in Flanders, Belgium

CONTEXT

Women who seek abortion care beyond the first trimester of gestation are often in a vulnerable socioeconomic position with limited social support, and in Belgium, the details of their circumstances are insufficiently understood. A better understanding of this group is essential to a critical evaluation of Belgian abortion policy, which restricts abortions on request after the first trimester.

METHODS

Anonymized patient records were collected between 2013 and 2016 from LUNA centers, which are non-hospital-based abortion clinics in Flanders. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between women's characteristics and whether they presented within or beyond the legal limit, which was 13 weeks and 1 day at the time of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 28,741 women requested an abortion, and 972 individuals (3.4%) presented beyond the legal limit; 29% of these latter women were unable to receive abortion care as a result of the mandatory six-day waiting period. Characteristics positively associated with presenting beyond the limit, instead of beforehand, were being younger than 20, as opposed to 20-24 (odds ratio, 1.7); receiving a primary, lower secondary, upper secondary or special-needs education, rather than a higher education (1.8-3.1); being unemployed, rather than employed (1.3); and holding Belgian rather than a foreign nationality (0.8). Being accompanied by someone to the LUNA center (0.8), having irregularly (0.6) or regularly used contraceptives (0.7), and having ever had an abortion (0.8) were negatively associated with presenting beyond, rather than before, the limit.

CONCLUSIONS

A fuller consideration of patients' characteristics when evaluating Belgian abortion policy is needed to ensure that the needs and rights of socioeconomically vulnerable women are addressed.